Wednesday’s two attention-grabbing speeches at the U.N. General Assembly — one by Egypt’s Mohamed Morsy and the other by Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — were those of two Presidents whose political stars are moving in opposite directions. Morsy, who this year became the Arab world’s first democratically elected Islamist head of state, debuted his statesman credentials, speaking forcefully of the plight of Palestinians, offering a road map for peace in Syria and implicitly chastising both Iran and Israel in their posturing over nuclear weapons. Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, in his eighth and likely last appearance before the General Assembly, spoke vacuously about not all that much, huffing and puffing about a “new world order” with little of the brio that in the past compelled diplomats to stand up and walk out midspeech.

That’s because Ahmadinejad is something of a lame duck. The reigning pantomime villain of U.N. week sees his presidential term end next year and is not eligible for a third one. He is also clearly at odds with the theocratic powers that be in the Islamic Republic, who, observers say, have grown tired of the populist politician’s “showboating” style and dispatched him this year to New York City with a very short diplomatic leash. While striking a defiant pose in the face of international sanctions, Ahmadinejad has been locked for months in domestic political skirmishes. A key ally of his was charged with “sorcery” last year; another prominent figure in Ahmadinejad’s camp, Ali Akbar Javanfekr, head of Iran’s IRNA state news agency, was arrested Wednesday and jailed for publishing material deemed offensive to religious moral codes.

At a press conference the same day at his hotel in midtown Manhattan, a block away from New York’s Museum of Modern Art, Ahmadinejad said he had yet to “digest” the news of Javanfekr’s arrest. Speaking beneath a painted portrait of the republic’s two Supreme Leaders — the late Ayatullah Ruhollah Khomeini and Ayatullah Ali Khamenei — Ahmadinejad seemed the same small man with a thin smile who the U.N. press corps dutifully followed for nearly a decade. But this time, it was as if he too were getting tired of his own act.

Far from spouting the anti-Zionist vitriol his opponents in the West despise him for, Ahmadinejad never once even mentioned the word Israel. Instead, he preached an airy, utopian egalitarianism, where “social relationships are guided by respect, kindness and love” in a world where “no one is better than, higher than anyone else.” The subtext, of course, was Iran’s long-standing disapproval of U.S. dominance in international affairs, particularly the Middle East, but Ahmadinejad’s words carried no edge. “The world over, people are kind and loving. We are made of the same fabric,” he said. An American journalist sitting close to this TIME reporter muttered whether this was indeed the Iranian President speaking or, instead, new-age guru Deepak Chopra, who was a guest of the nearby Clinton Global Initiative.

When compelled to address specifics, Ahmadinejad largely skirted around tough questions — and minimized throughout his own role and legacy. Asked about how he viewed the past eight years of turbulence with Washington, Ahmadinejad made himself a pebble in the stream— “for 33 years we have ceased to have relations [with the U.S.]” — and criticized earlier American administrations for their role in supporting Iraqi tyrant Saddam Hussein’s war with Iran in the 1980s. On Syria, Ahmadinejad decried the “intervention and meddling of outside forces” in the bloody, internecine conflict — pointing, it seemed, to the aid that Gulf rivals Saudi Arabia and Qatar are giving Syria’s rebels — but dismissed abruptly evidence that Iran, too, is “meddling” by supporting the embattled regime of President Bashar Assad. When a colleague confronted Ahmadinejad on the presence of hundreds of political prisoners in his country, he ignored the comment, hoping instead for “a day when no one is prisoner at all” before then pouring scorn on the American justice system for incarcerating over 3 million of its own people.

The Iranian President seemed most comfortable in this realm of vagaries and grand historical gestures. The Syrians, it had to be remembered, are “an ancient people.” What do Egypt and Iran’s complex current relations matter when they are the “cradles of two great civilizations”? Moreover, Ahmadinejad clung to the messianic rhetoric that animates political discourse in the Islamic Republic: humanity, he says, strives for “higher plateaus” and a “beautiful event.” Mysticism and a sense of divine calling lined his mumblings: “The full extent of human dignity is not even known,” said Ahmadinejad. More realistically, what is not known is his own political future as he heads back to the battles and politicking that await in Tehran.

He certainly outlasted, as leader of Iran, a number of other 'world leaders'. In fact, when you compare him for effectiveness, he did a far better job of keeping his country out of wars, foreign or domestic, than a large number of 'leaders' who are held up as advocates of peace. Including a couple who received international recognition for their 'efforts'.

Americans need to be careful about how they view others. A western, but not American, friend of mine recently returned from a trip to Iran talking about how well regarded America is to the average Iranian on the street. Demonize Iran at your own risk. We may have friendlier relations ahead if we treat them as we wish them to treat us.

The author is deliberately skirting the fact that the bulk of Ahmadinejad's speech deals exclusively with his belief that the "Mahdi," the Islamic messiah, will be appearing soon. It is deceptive to label the speech's content vacuously as "mysticism and a sense of divine calling," or to refer to Ahmadinejad's declarations as "mumblings." Any apparent humility or cowed aspect of this man is nothing more than an illusion. Ahmadinejad is invoking Shia Mahdi doctrine and is, in fact, calling upon the Mahdi to appear. Radical Islam is poised to descend upon an unsuspecting west, one that Barack Hussein Obama is preparing for this event with statements such as, "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Wake up, America! http://www.canadafreepress.com...

Not at all.........The Bible says that the Devil is behind those who persecute Jews and Christians..........you do not know the spirit which motivates you sir.......search your heart.........The Lord is good, blessed is the man who trusts in Him.......There is no other name given among men, than the name of Jesus, by which we must be saved............Love never fails my friend........

.........Revelation 12:17

And the dragon ( Satan ) was enraged with the woman (Israel), and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

I'm what christians and muslims would call a heretic and I will see all of them burn in hell quicker than I will. Religions have been the cause of more suffering than anything else in humanity. To hell with the bible and the koran. They were wrote by men, not gods. Get over it.

@BradHolman Actually you might be an infidel, apostate, or blasphemer. Most likely just a simple unbeliever - well, maybe a blasphemer, given your invective there.. Heretic is a technical term denoting factions or challenges to orthodox doctrine. The original use of the word, in Greek, actually meant a choice. It gradually became used as a pejorative term to describe perceived threats doctrinal integrity and/or the unity of the social body (in Christianity the church.) So to be a heretic you would have to initially belong to a community espousing a particular symbolic universe (i.e. Islam, Christianity, Buddhism etc.) before you would have any hope of becoming a heretic. Conversely you could join a well established heresy, like say Gnosticism - here you have to believe that the material universe is evil - and maybe you do believe that. Judging from your post, you are probably a basic modern individualist who condemns religion because it is fashionable, and because you mistakenly believe that you have exalted yourself to a place of autonomy and freedom. Note the facility of your condemnation. Religion (by which you intend to denote specific symbolic universes which do not include your own) = suffering. A priest I know once commented on the massive increase in wars and violence during the modern era, when religion had allegedly become passe and we had supposedly entered the age of reason. Clearly "religion" cannot be the sole or even primary motivator of violence, at least not if we restrict it merely to belief in the supernatural.

Now if we are to include in religion all ideological fences that compel us to define ourselves in opposition to others, or even all the symbolic registrars wherein we organize our being, then I might be inclined to agree with you, although at that point "religion" seems a rather bunk category. This, in the end is my position. "Religion" is a bunk category that does not appropriately describe any real body of human existence or experience. Not that we need to stop using the labels Christian or Muslim necessarily, but maybe you should be a little more cautious in assuming that you know what you are talking about.

Good luck becoming a heretic. I hope you succeed -- you blasphemer you!

I really can't blame Iran for wanting the security that a nuclear threat brings. They are being threatened by god's chosen people, the Israeli's, they have watched their neighbor destroyed by an aggressive unwarranted attack by the American's, who are now beating the war drum against them. And you've got another couple of religious zealots armed with nuclear weapons in Pakistan and India.

Is Iran any more religiously fanatical than Israel, India, or Pakistan? Probably less so. Even the U.S.A has a strong religious contingent in government that probably influences its aggressive foreign policy.

If one country has the power to destroy you, they tend to take liberties. One solution would be for every country to destroy their nuclear arsenals so that everyone is on a level playing field. That would be fair wouldn't it? I'm not gonna hold my breath though.

@skater60 BUt it would be a major move towards leveling the playing field.

Many countries, the US included, spend a very large proportion of their funds on defense, on better weapons systems and on various other "toys" for their troops. They do so to such an extent that they are unable to take care of their own citizens.

Eliminating the nuclear option for every country (while allowing for the use of nuclear energy, if they so wish to poison their country) means that military spending goes down, thus allowing every country the possibility of taking cvre of their own. That, in turn, improves their economies, and improves everything else, including relations between countries.

Just because there are multiple steps towards a level playing field doesn't mean that it's not possible.

dr alan sabrosky, former usa army war college curriculum director, marine vet, and jew, concluded publicly years ago that israel did 9-11. why are we listening to any politicians from that criminal state anymore? remember the uss liberty, as former usa joint chief of staff chair admiral mike mullen told israel more than once. the usa will not be bullied into any iran war for israel's sake. israel is a far greater threat to the usa and the world than iran, and always has been.

why is the UN today not the forum for total nuclear disarmament it was designed to be? all of this nuke weapons posturing is sheer madness.

This longstanding disagreement over policies between the USA, Iran, Israel, and other nations, when I look at it at the core level, it all reminds me of the usual high school playground environment where the "cool" kids get to call the shots. Then the not so popular ones either try their hardest to join the cool kids' club, or establish some sort of new world order, or give up fitting in altogether.

My hope is that the people in the Middle East would at least learn some moderation. Iran should give up its nuclear ambitions, because the rest of the world doesn't want atomic bombs being in the hands of religious extremists. Iran should stop proving itself and asserting itself as some superpower. Israel, on the other hand, should stop aggravating matters and be the better man they would like to be.

The UN has become an organization which has failed miserably in its goal of preventing wars. it has instead condoned many. and the world is at the brink of another US lead was and the UN is still silent. The Failure of the UN http://wp.me/p2JYCO-1d

cycles, and other means of instant communication, A-Jad does not really need

the platform of the UN General Assembly to make his true intentions globally known. And the world should not assume that A-Jad's bland UN speech represents a softening of Iran's position on Israel or America.

As reported by the Jerusalem Post on August 2, 2012, A-Jad

said: “Anyone who loves freedom and justice must strive for the annihilation of

the Zionist regime in order to pave the way for world justice and

freedom.”

So, let me get this straight. World justice and freedom

depends on wiping out Israel—a country the size of New Jersey, with a

population under eight million, less than half as big as New York City? Iran,

on the other hand, is a country of 75 million. Who is the bigger threat to

whom?

Then, two weeks later, as reported by Reuters on August 17, 2012,

in an event broadcast live on Iranian state television, A-Jad told worshippers

at Tehran University: “You want a new Middle East? We do too, but in the new

Middle East ... there will be no trace of the American presence and the

Zionists.”

If Ahmadinejad’s presence at the University of Tehran sounds

familiar, it should. In September of 1979, students at that university plotted

the takeover of the American embassy and capture of American hostages. There

were reportedly five students at this first planning session—one of them was

none other than Ahmadinejad. Clearly, history tends to repeat itself—especially

when the same players are on stage in roles that have only changed by becoming much bigger speaking parts.

Educated people? Educated where - University of Teheran? We invaded Iraq because we felt like invading Iraq, seemed like a good idea at the time, but had nothing to do with Israel, other than having a loose cannon (Saddam) in the region. Iran is another loose cannon. What happens to loose cannons?

US and its master, Israel, are the only to countries that used WMDs! I don't blame Iran for KNOWING that its only defence from ATTACK from them is to be well-armed! America sacrificed enough for BARBARIC Israel in Gentile deaths and a wrecked economy. If Israel attacks Iran, let it bear the full responsibility and stop all US AID and armaments to it! Stop financing the Jew-controlled Imperial Military of our for-sale governments that denies US Gentiles, among hundreds of other services, Universal Health-Dental-Optical-Drugs-ancillaries so it can develop ever more deadly weaponry to subjugate all other peaceful humans to the will of the CHOSEN Jews and kill another 2 million Arabs, M.E. Christians and Moslems just in Iraq and Afghanistan. US tail maintains that MASTER, BARBARIC Israel mUSt maintain its hegemony over Arabs even through their traitorous kings who were installed by Imperial US-U.K!! Enough! In all of book 19 of Deuteronomy, a racist ‘God’ calls Jews CHOSEN (in 200+ Biblical passages), gives them the heavily populated ‘land of Milk and Honey’ of ancient Semitic Palestinians and Arabs and sanctions the killing of ALL the peoples Israelites conquered (or has available Ester or Naomi put out amp; then murder the ‘enemy leader’ in his sleep), including Arabs, Palestinians, Samaritans, Sumerians, Kaldians, etc! This comes after 10 centuries of re-writing of the Bible to sanitize the image of a vindictive, psychopathic God who is childishly obsessed with forcing ‘His creation’ to ‘worship’ Him rather than asking mankind to be equanimous and recognize the equal rights of others! This Gargantuan lie was orchestrated by the Jew-run US Imperial Military, because ALL US Presidents (and 90% Jew Congress) since Jew FDR’s time (incldng half-Jew W. Churchill) were Jews or converts from Judaism, married to Jewesses or have Jew blood in them incldng Mr Obama! If you want peace, negate CHOSEN Israel and recognize the equal rights of Israel’s victims!

@Varoujan Tourian You need mental health treatment for your obsession about Jews. Yes, Jews seek to gain advantages for their country, but taking it to the point where the all people who annoy you are all Jews is just nuts.

Why is it I have more respect for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad than I do for Barack Obama-?!! I think it's because he stands for somthing even though it is nuts. BO is simply a narcissistic twit seeking his own glory.

You didn't do your homework well. surprisingly Ahmadinejad was one of the two students who opposed invading the US embassy.

Khomeyni also opposed that but the deal changed because of US presidential candidate who was looking for an October surprise to take over the white house and later sell weapon to Iran. (have you heard about The Iran–Contra affair ?)

Isn't it interesting? you seem like doing a copy paste from CNN or Fox News.

"he tried to draw parallels to his regime and himself with ancient Persian culture using loose historical correlations as references under a premise that his theocratic military dictatorship is somehow a continuation and extension of a more glorious and compassionate Persian past."

I'm an Iranian and I see him being as great as Cyrus the Great.

However, I laugh at people who believe in god and religions instead of logic and science, people like you ('the thin veil over his stated intentions than to insincerely aspire to the noble and just attributes of God and country.')

and in another way people like Ahmadinejad. you both are coming from the same place. at least he has done a great deal of work for the people, what have YOU done typical citizen?

He is an idealist who wants to bring justice to the world and change the structure of UN, remove the stupid Security Council and give all nations equal opportunity to manage the world and that's his New World Order.

He is against the idea that five countries call themselves (The International Community), and interestingly 2/3 of the world likes his ideas, and it was proved in Non-Aligned Movement.

idealism is funny and fragile as life on earth, but its better than doing nothing.

you like to show Iranians and their government as a barbaric nation here because they challenge your fake values (selective morality), (human right (that somehow closes its eyes to Bradley Manning, a million people who were killed in the wars US started in the past ten years, Palestinians who are treated as second citizens if not animals in their own lands))?

and the funny part is when you want to 'talk about democracy' and take credit for revolutions (Hillary Clinton ---> 'Twitter made that revolution happen') against the dictators that US government and its allies supported.

I wrap up your whole stories with one word: hypocrisy.

anyway, I'm one of those barbaric Iranians, someone who can't even open a bank account because of its nationality. but I know one thing that you guys closed your eyes on it. this ('country', 'flag', 'border', 'royalty') story was made to make uneducated people busy fighting for the king.

The owner doesn't demand it anymore, but this dog can't give up its royalty. heh,

You didn't do your homework well. surprisingly Ahmadinejad was one of the two students who opposed invading the US embassy.

Khomeyni also opposed that but the deal changed because of US presidential candidate who was looking for an October surprise to take over the white house and later sell weapon to Iran. (have you heard about The Iran–Contra affair ?)

Isn't it interesting? you seem like doing a copy paste from CNN or Fox News.

"he tried to draw parallels to his regime and himself with ancient Persian culture using loose historical correlations as references under a premise that his theocratic military dictatorship is somehow a continuation and extension of a more glorious and compassionate Persian past."

I'm an Iranian and I see him being as great as Cyrus the Great.

However, I laugh at people who believe in god and religions instead of logic and science, people like you ('the thin veil over his stated intentions than to insincerely aspire to the noble and just attributes of God and country.')

and in another way people like Ahmadinejad. you both are coming from the same place. at least he has done a great deal of work for the people, how about you?

He is an idealist who wants to bring justice to the world and change the structure of UN, remove the stupid Security Council and give all nations equal opportunity to manage the world and that's his New World Order.

He is against the idea that five countries call themselves (The International Community), and interestingly 2/3 of the world likes his ideas, and it was proved in Non-Aligned Movement.

you like to show Iranians and their government as a barbaric nation here in the west because they challenge your fake values (human right (that somehow closes its eyes to Bradley Manning, a million people who were killed in the wars US started in the past ten years, Palestinians who are treated as second citizens if not animals in their own lands)), and the funny part is when you want to 'talk about democracy' and take credit for revolutions (Hillary Clinton ---> 'Twitter made that revolution happen') against the dictators that US government and its allies supported.

anyway, I'm one of those barbaric Iranians, someone who can't even open a bank account because of its nationality. but I know one thing that you guys closed your eyes on it. this ('country', 'flag', 'border', 'royalty') story was made to make uneducated people busy fighting for the king. The owner doesn't demand it anymore, but this dog can't give up its royalty. heh,

then meditate on 'Morality'. "Beyond Good and Evil by Friedrich Nietzsche" is a good startand then just start serious objective thinking, if you can.I shouldn't read this article and these comments. I feel sick now...

Netanyahu is correct and historically eloquent. Iran must not be allowed to enrich past 90%. The questions are: Can the issue wait to make it past the 2012 US Presidential Election? If not, will the candidates work their differences in helping Israel into their campaigning? How will this affect the outcome of the election? How will the issue affect this situation in Israel/Iran if it does become more of an issue in the election? How will the issue be handled in the up and coming Presidential term and by whom?

It's not actually Iran having nukes that is the main problem, the main

problem is Iran threatening to destroy Israel, "wipe it off the map".

Jewish folks have heard this before from Hitler, and are willing to take no chances again, or rely on others for their safety - can you blame them? It's called "learning from experience". How to fix the problem? Get rid of Iran's theocratic government, have the Iranian people decide for themselves what government they shall have through democratic elections. So, it's not the nukes themselves, it's the person holding the nukes that the world cannot live with.

If I'm not mistaken...Iran could develop nuclear technology if they would cooperate and allow inspections. They do not allow the inspection as they should be. Why? Why are they hiding their work? Also, the enrichment is slowly getting to where it can used for weapons. Why? That is not needed for energy. They also very openly talk about eliminating Israel. Why? Because Jordan and Egypt do not want to allow so called 'Palestinians' into their own lands. The 'Palestinians' are arabs just like the Egyptians and Jordanians. Have you ever heard of a country called 'Palestine'? Check your history very carefully. There have been people called Palestinians but are completely arab. There was no Palestine before 1948. They are not the Philistines depicted in the Bible.

Was there ever a country called United States? Nope but it was created. Your argument against a Palestinian state has no basis without accepting there was no United States, Germany, Italy, etc.. until they were created.

Furthermore it is not Egypt and Jordan's responsibility to take in a society that clearly has roots to the land. Census records from the 1800s/1900s show there was a people there. Who cares what they called themselves then. The fact is they existed and their descendants have a right to stay on their land.

Iran agreed to open their nuclear facility for the IAEA inspection team on the condition of dropping all the sanctions against them but our so called P5+1 world leaders didn't agree.Why?........because bottom line is:they don't want Iran to be a regional power house as they can't control it.

@Fatesrider Israel obviously intends to conquer all of the former territory of Israel at its greatest former extent. Iran seems to have similar goals. It doesn't bode well for peace in the middle east.

Given that Iran has agreed to "open up their facilities" then refused the inspectors entry into them on too many occasions to count in what can only be described as temporary delaying tactics to prevent sanctions, one must take any offer they make to inspect their facilities in a return for the lifting of those sanctions with a grain of salt slightly larger than their oil reserves.

Iran will never allow inspectors into the places inspectors want to go. They've said as much on many occasions. This renders your whole argument above utterly moot. It's pointless to say why one party would refuse an offer the other party had no intention of fulfilling.

Iran as a regional powerhouse, given their religious extremism, would be seen as a destabilizing influence in the region. As is happening in the United States, when extremist rhetoric is repeated often enough and long enough, people who are raised up in it begin to believe that it's something they should do. Given that Iran's stated goal is the destruction of Israel - a separate country - and that repeated investigations of the money trail financing terrorist organizations, weapons and other such violence-oriented themes in the Middle East and elsewhere has led directly back to Iran, it seems unlikely that the inevitable attempts to reach those often repeated goals will be by peaceful or diplomatic means.

The world is an imperfect place. Life isn't fair. People get oppressed and angry all the time. People resort to violence when that happens. Throwing radioactive fuel on top of that fire seems... imprudent.

I have no fondness for Israel, but if people would stop threatening their very existence, they would have a lot less justification to speak and act aggressively. The Middle East piss*ng contest between Arab nations and Israel needs to stop. World opinion will not change toward the Middle East as long as religions motivate national policy and goals.

Resources are growing scarce. One would think that those who have them and could profit from them would be in a position to keep them provided they didn't act like belligerent radicals. Like the kid we all knew who had the ball for the ball game, if they want to enjoy themselves, they have to play the game and not take the ball and keep it for themselves.

There are ways to resolve the Middle East situation diplomatically and peacefully. But while religion, 5th century traditions and belligerence dominate the region, they're not going to happen. The region needs to grow the hell up, stop acting like a bunch of children and join the rest of the world in the 21st century. Because if they don't, the rest of the world will make them go to bed without their supper - permanently.

Like I said, the world is an imperfect place. This WILL happen eventually, unless the realities of the world are addressed in a rational, mature and practical manner.

JohnWV, I don't think you are a moron although your statement seems very moronic. The United States has nuclear weapons and so do many European countries. Are you saying that because they have it, Iran should too? That's lame. Did you forget about terrorism, human rights violations, threatening the destruction of another UN member, etc, etc? In what universe you live?

"Remember when Nasser's forces sprung a surprise attack on Israel on a Jewish holiday?"

"Israel have had to struggle for their existence ever since the state came into existence" Yes, and so had appartheid South Africa...

Is that how you remember the 1973 war that was launched by Egypt and Syria to liberate lands occupied by Israel in 1967? True it was launched in Ramadan, on Yom Kippur, thus holiday on both sides.

How ignorant are you to propose that such a war was launched by Nasser and not Sadat, and needless to say the aim was to liberate land and not distroy Israel. The myth of unquestionable Israeli military supremacy was shattered, which paved the path towards some kind or peace treaty. The Israelis did realize that they cannot sustain themselves in the region without an ultimate, peaceful solution.

mnominous, JohnWV did not imply that he thinks Iran should be able to have nukes simply because other counrties have them, you mistakenly inferred that. Rather, JohnWV stated that Iran, being a NPT signatory, has the right to develop and implement nuclear tech...meaning nuclear power, nuclear processes to develop medical isotopes, and other peaceful uses of nuclear tech, NOT nuclear weapons. Any NPT signatory is essentially prohibited from having anything to do with nuclear weapons (key word), other than compelling states with pre-NPT nuke stockpiles to dismantle any such existing stockpiles.

Obama, JohnWV, and myself all live in this universe. The real universe. The universe where a proper moron is one who holds opposing views and statements as moronic without first thinking of their implications. The universe where state actors (and non-) are held responsible for the consequences of their actions, not by the allegations of others. According to you, we live in a lame universe...and for that, I offer you my deepest, most sincere apologies for the sub-par excitement. Nevertheless, I agreeably so, do not wish for Iran to obtain nuclear weapons.

That said, I believe that they should be stopped in a rational way if, and ONLY if, there is indisputable evidence that they are attempting to go beyond peaceful nuclear tech. Unless they have been proven, with certainty, to be in breach of NPT provisions, Israel needs BACK OFF and control their paranoia. Imagine the chaos that would erupt if Israel made a preemptive strike against Iran when they did not possess weapons grade uranium. The Middle East would implode and descend into true anarchy (not the quasi-anarchy composed of rational actors that "international law" tries to convey).

Two problems with your lame unreal universe. Number 1: Iran's danger as a nuclear state (non-weaponized) isn't in their ability to deploy or develop for that matter a nuclear bomb with a return address for a response, but rather, in their ability to develop and deploy a dirty bomb within a suitcase in Manhattan and then highjack the whole world in the process. Now how easy is that if you let them enrich Uranium to certain grade? Then, what are you smart a.. going to do? Trace it all over the world?

Number 2: How are you supposed to control Iran's stockpile or how far they've reached? You don't want an imploding Middle East. Rather you want a Middle East with all our heads in the sand.

Obama wanted to create a peaceful Middle East. What did we get, chaos all over by showing weakness. That's very smart.

Number 1: Iran's danger as a nuclear state (non-weaponized) isn't in their ability to deploy or develop for that matter a nuclear bomb with a return address for a response, but rather, in their ability to develop and deploy a dirty bomb within a suitcase in Manhattan and then highjack the whole world in the process. Now how easy is that if you let them enrich Uranium to certain grade? Then, what are you smart ass going to do? Trace it all over the world?

Number 2: How are you supposed to control Iran's stockpile or how far they've reached? You don't want an imploding Middle East. Rather you want a Middle East with all our heads in the sand.

Obama wanted to create a peaceful Middle East. What did we get? Chaos all over by showing weakness. That's very smart.

That also describes the Catholic Church who subdued the justice system of countless nations in spiriting away convicted pedophile priests (orchestrated by the current Pope, no less), granted it's blessing to the Nazi regime (first treaty of the third Reich was with the Vatican), and supported at least half a dozen genocides (mostly African and Balkan Muslims) in recent years.

When you talk about terrorism and human rights violation, which countries are you talking about? The U.S. has supplied terrorists and dictators that murder their own people with weapons and training. The U.S. killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's in a needless war. Israel is one of the worlds worst human rights violators and they continue to threaten Iran.

What I would like to see is a level playing field because some countries use their military strength to bully other counties. If your prerequisite for nuclear weapons depends on a nations human rights record and terrorist activity, then very few countries qualify to be in possession of nuclear weapons. You do realize that, in particular, the U.S. and Israel have very dirty hands do you not?

It's kind of funny how words get distorted losing their original intent. Terrorism, last time I checked, is committing acts of violence to influence political decisions by a democratic system. I don't see Iran being democratic. Well, it is pseudo-democratic. That's true.

Killing innocent people is a human rights violation depending on the context of the killing. If the context is to free people from a dictator that sends its own people to concentration camps and orders massive killings of his population on a daily basis, well, if you want to get rid of him, some innocent people are going to die. It's inevitable. Point in case: North Korea.

The United States isn't bullying other countries, just the ones that have megalomaniac messianic end of times ideas and want to acquire attomic bombs (an oxymorron).

What kinda terrorism U're talking about?To my knowledge Iran never went to attack another country in recent era.I believe Iran is a far more stabilize and peaceful country than Pakistan and even Israel.So if they wanna v one for their own protection while Israel always whining and threatening at them then what's wrong with that?U must forget Iran is a big country over 80 million people not just a terrorist state who occupy others land.Besides,how long world leaders can restrain them?It's technology.....it run's very first.Today whatever developed country have in their hands surely tomorrow 3rd world countries also gonna have it,hence put sanctions and curbing their effort won't restrain them so long.Its better we value our lives and teach others to value their lives as well.

The USA, the UK and the most other nuke-possessing countries are far more stable than Iran. Pakistan weren't given nuclear technology, they stole it.

Iran is run by a theocracy which is blinded by mad visions of grandeur, it wouldn't be unlike them to authorize a nuclear strike so that Iranians could all go to Paradise or whatever totally unlike the USA, China etc

Israel have had to struggle for their existence ever since the state came into existence. Remember when Nasser's forces sprung a surprise attack on Israel on a Jewish holiday? So it makes sense that Israel possess a deterrent that no-one in the region does. Especially so with the rise of Islamist governments like Morsi and his Masters in Egypt.

The reverse, Israel using the nuclear deterrent to invade other countries in the Middle East is not tenable because Israel is still dependent on American goodwill. Any rash action by them in the region would case chaos in the world oil markets and Uncle Sam will not allow that. Moreover, Israel will not be immune to wartime losses even if it does use its nukes in the Middle East. And the Israeli populace, who know what a grand prize their country is, will not allow that.